University Presses /Academic Publishers
Please share your experiences working with these presses! Feel free to add other presses and publishers to the list. Please use "Heading 3" to format the names of presses or publishers. Use bullet points to add responses under each heading. See Also: Association of American University Presses (List of Members) University Presses Bucknell University Press * Cambridge University Press *Editor "misplaced" first copy of manuscript. I only discovered this three months in when I sent an inquiry about the current status of the review. I sent a second copy of the ms, as the editor requested. I started checking in every three months, then every six weeks. Every time, I was told the ms was about to be sent out for review. I finally pulled the ms from Cambridge after it had sat there more than a year with absolutely no movement and no external reviews. From what I hear, this sort of inaction is common with Cambridge (I worked through the UK office). **Did the editor ask for an exclusive review of your manuscript? There should be some accountability for such unprofessional conduct. **I had an equally bad experience with Cambridge's US office (Eric Crahan in particular) that very nearly cost me tenure. I submitted the ms in February 2010 at which point it was sent out to one reviewer. In May I received a "revise-and-resubmit" from the reviewer and a promise from the editor that he would send the ms to two reviewers after I revised it. I resubmitted an extensively revised ms a year later and was told that it was going out to two reviewers. Six months later, after having heard nothing, I sent an email to the editor checking on the status of the ms. The next morning he forwarded the second report from the first reviewer which now urged publication. Remarkably, for reasons that he didn't explain, the editor had never bothered to send the ms to a second reviewer. (To make matters worse, I latter learned from the first reviewer who agreed to reveal his identity that he had submitted his report in July which meant that the editor had it for four months without doing anything with it!) At this point, I very politely explained that my tenure timeline required a book contract by the coming spring. The editor promised to solicit a review that would be due by January 1. In March, the editor forwarded a "revise-and-resubmit" report from a reviewer who---based on her/his utter lack of knowledge of the topic and field---had no business reviewing the book and told me that---after two years of being jerked around---CUP were going to pass on the ms. I would strongly recommend caution with CUP. *CUP took my ms. for review, had it for several months, stopped responding to my calls and emails. I know a guy who had his ms. out with them for over a year and they wouldn't email him back, then finally after a year rejected it and in the process mentioned that he had always been free to have it under review elsewhere. Beware. Central European University Press *I have begun discussions with an editor about submitting a manuscript for the CEU classics series, and would welcome feedback/praise/complaints from anyone who has worked with them. Columbia University Press * Cornell University Press *Friend had a very bad experience with an editor here; extremely slow, then finally rejected the ms. after more than a year. Duke University Press *Although a rejection, very professional and timely. Duquesne University Press *About six weeks after submitting a proposal for my medievalist book "Ogling Ladies" (since published with UP of Florida) to Duquesne UP, I received a friendly generic email from the editorial assistant Brock Bahler. The only problem was that the subject line of the email read: "Standard Rejection." Edinburgh University Press *form rejection letter received from editorial assistant a month ago email query (2013) Fairleigh Dickinson University Press * Fordham University Press *29 June 2013 sent a detailed proposal (literary studies) and rec'd a response (negative) 5 July. Harvard University Press *Bad experience with Lindsay Waters, the Director. He seemed interested in my manuscript and requested 7 chapters (exclusively). 3 months later asked me for peer reviewer suggestions. 3 months later, after a bit of pushing and prodding, told me it was "best to drop" to manuscript as he'd taken on too much work and couldn't give me the attention my work deserved. Very annoying. Johns Hopkins University Press *Received a prompt and polite rejection within days of email submission of proposal. Even though it was a rejection, I felt I was treated with respect and consideration, which is saying a lot! *Never received any response to a proposal or follow-up email (both directed at the appropriate editor). Louisiana State University Press *I can't say enough good things about LSU Press. Published 2 books with them and they were spectacular (really can't find a better word) from beginning to end. * Manchester University Press *So far excellent experience. Fast and friendly, forthcoming about the way they work. McGill-Queen's University Press *I've published two books now (one monograph, one edited collection) with MQUP, and the experience has been great. The acquisitions editor responds within hours -- if not minutes -- of my emails. (To be fair, my turnaround time is never that quick!) The only drawback is the extra funding that MQUP, like other Canadian presses, needs, since it is not subsidized by its parent universities in the same way as US presses. This adds a second layer of peer review (first for the press, then for the funder), which can be frustrating. But beyond that, I've been very pleased -- my books have been widely marketed and well reviewed. Northwestern University Press *I have a ms. under review here and am hugely impressed with the professionalism and promptness of the editors. *I just put my book under contract with NUP, and I would second everything the previous poster says. In my experience, the whole process so far (from solicitation of manuscript to review to contract) has been marked by exemplary care and consideration on the part of the editors. (Summer 2012) Notre Dame University Press * Ohio State University Press *Beware! I'm not sure what's happening there, but I and two colleagues in my department have had very negative experiences with them in the past year. I worked with Sandy Crooms, who solicited my manuscript for a series. My two colleagues also worked with her and found her utterly unprofessional. My experience: After receiving two enthusiastic R&R letters, Sandy indicated that the changes should be easy to make and that she hoped to be able to get the manuscript to the board promptly. Then, when I submitted the revision, everything went awry. Instead of sending back to one of the original readers, she said she was sending it to someone new. Okay. It sat for three months, then she said she'd placed it with a reader. Two months later I got a rejection in the mail with no warning, and it included two readers' reports. I still have no idea why there were two. One recommended acceptance and one rejected. The reader who rejected hadn't read much of the manuscript and made bizarre comments about the field. Neither letter referenced the revisions I'd made at the request of the first two readers. Since then, I've learned that OSUP apparently treats R&Rs as new submissions, so they don't give the second-round readers your letter explaining revisions or the first two readers' reports. What a waste of readers' time and a spectacular waste of valuable pre-tenure time! *I had the opposite experience with OSUP. I submitted my manuscript in June. Sandy Crooms kept me posted about when she'd received it, when she'd placed it with a first and a second reviewer, and when she thought she'd get the reports back (October). I sent my revisions back to them by January and they published it within a year from the editorial board approval in February. The whole process was very efficient and smooth, and I felt well-informed throughout. The book has been well-reviewed and I also appreciate how they continue to promote the book even a few years out. Oxford University Press *Summer 2013 - rejection with no reader reports; explanation that "there's too many books to publish so we can't possibly publish them all" (paraphrased) *August 2012--My experience (Americanist) with the press has been fanastic. From initial query to manuscript submission was a month; from submission to readers reports was four months. Reports were positive, thorough, and very helpful. *Sept. 2012--Excellent experience, start to finish. Editors are very on top of things and respond quickly, get good reports. Ask for a good copyeditor, though, some that they use via contract are substandard. *2011 - query to UK office produced snooty response that OUP unlikely to publish book based on a PhD dissertation *Terrible, tenure-threatening experience. Generally wouldn't respond to my calls or emails. Didn't send the ms. for review for many months, I later learned, despite what they led me to believe. After more than a year, I pulled it because they were moving so slowly that I feared I wouldn't get tenure. Princeton University Press * Purdue University Press * Rutgers University Press *I have had a very good experience with Rutgers. The initial response to my proposal was a little slow, but since then everything has moved at a brisk pace, with quick review turnarounds and prompt responses to all of my questions. Stanford University Press *Was not impressed that proposal was misplaced - in fact it appears from the correspondence received that it was never sent out for any review at all. Granted these presses get many proposals, but there are ways to stay organized. Syracuse University Press *So far my experience has been absolutely horrendous. It took them over 2 years to accept a ms., and the current projected pub date is 2014, over 2 years after submission of the final ms. I would strongly advise against dealing with this press for anyone under time pressure to publish. *A hot mess. Save yourself while you still can. See third point under Cambridge U: virtually my experience at Syracuse. Perhaps the editor has two part-time jobs. University of Alabama Press *My experience with this press has been wonderful. They respond quickly at all stages, send the ms. to two established scholars for review, and always keep in touch. They also don't obligate you to publish your next book with them, which many presses do. However, I am going with them for my second book, since my first experience was so good. *I'm in the discussion phase with them on my second book, and I've been very pleased with my interactions as well. Very prompt, very professional. University of California Press *I'm considering submitting a book manuscript to UC Press, but I've heard through the grapevine that they are really slow in publishing humanities book manuscripts (I'm in history). One friend had a book that was supposed to go into production in late 2011 and still hasn't come out yet. Can anyone confirm or deny extreme lag at UC? University of Chicago Press *Received a fast and professional rejection (art history). Much preferred to not hearing anything for a year. *Ditto to the previous post. I received a rejection hours after submission, saying that they only publish certain types of art history books. The editor probably didn't even read my proposal & sample writing, but the speed & courtesy is appreciated. University of Delaware Press * University of Massachusetts Press * University of Michigan Press * University of Missouri Press *Polite rejection received within weeks of query submission. University of North Carolina Press * University of Ottawa Press * University of Pennsylvania Press *Terrific to work with, very good to their authors. And Jerry Singerman may be the best scholarly-press editor working in the humanities. *Be careful. After five months of review time the editor (not the same as above) led me to believe the manuscript was moving toward an invitation to respond to positive reports. Got a rude shock a week or so later. Instead of the invite he emailed an apology for being delinquent with the process and declined to invite a response even as he presented a second positive report. I have no idea what transpired between him and the series editors but this experience left me with a poor impression of the press and the two series editors. **Q. ^^^When was this? Which series? *I had almost precisely the same experience as the person who wrote the above "Be careful" post. Singerman was courteous, kind and yet entirely melba toast in the face of his mercurial series editors. University Press of Mississippi * University of Texas Press * University of Toronto Press *very frustrating process for a large co-edited collection with two dozen contributors. everything took forever. Canadian academic presses basically only publish books if they get SSHRC funding for them. this means that after initial blind peer review process (which took 6+ months for us), there is an entire second round of similar peer reviews set up through SSHRC (another half year). basically, publishing with them takes about twice as long as with many American presses. something else to consider: University of Toronto Press has some of the most conservative and restrictive copyright contracts for their books. the absolute opposite of open access. *The funding process of Canadian presses is more complicated than that of US presses, as the comment above makes clear. But my experience with UTP has been very different in every other respect. The acquisitions editor has given me great feedback on my proposal (for a monograph rather than an edited collection), and we've strategized about how to find the funding necessary for publication. (There are more options than just SSHRC.) I'll be submitting my manuscript in August, and we'll see how the review process goes. University of Virginia Press * University of Washington Press * submitted a book manuscript to a series run by the press January 2011. I had been in contact with the series editors previously, and had been encouraged to submit a full ms. Received two positive reader reviews November 2011 with an invitation from the acquisitions editor to submit a plan for revision. I submitted that quickly and moved ahead with the revisions, which were fairly minor. Resubmitted late January 2012. Received email acknowledgement from a different acqusitions editor saying the previous one had retired, and that I would receive a full response soon. Heardnothing for two months. Emailed in April 2012 and three days later received a response telling me that the manuscript was now rejected. No explanation whatsoever. No communication from the series editors, whom I know personally. What happened? * Alarmed and very sorry to know about your disappointing experience with UW Press. How unfortunate that authors have no protection against such callous work ethic. Matters seem to be taken seriously only when a contract is issued but we all know authors spend enough time and resources before the contract. For many their tenure clock ticks away and is catastrophic if they were to have the UW Press experience above. Will keep this post in mind when I look for a press for my next manuscript. Thanks. Regarding the silence--my experience shows that some (not all) editors are initially (very) polite and inviting. After receiving the manuscript and proposal, they change gears and move into an "automated reply" mode or the "ignore and keep mum" mode. Initially this was annoying now it is predictible, and makes me laugh and strategize accordingly. University Press of Florida *Contacted the acquisitions editor with a query letter and she informed me that the press had a keen interest in publishing an edited volume. After submitting a CFP based upon my query, then presenting a proposal to the press adhering to the outline in the query, the editor then informed me that the press had no interest in reviewing the volume in the present form and that I would need to expand the volume's focus to include a wider range of texts. *I have had a couple of great experiences with this press (monograph and edited collection). The acquisitions editor I worked with was exceptionally friendly and helpful, the review process is really thorough but still moved quickly, and they were supportive and helpful with getting permissions for photos and other things. It took about a year in each instance from submission of final manuscript to book publication. University Press of Kansas * Wayne State University Press * Wilfrid Laurier University Press *Had conversation with editor at a conference; submitted proposal. The next year, at the same conference, saw editor again, and they assured me the proposal was in her bag to review on the plane. Two years later, the book is coming out with another press--and I still haven't gotten a reply to either my submission email or the note I sent pulling the book from consideration! *I would love to send a copy of your book to the Wilfred Laurier Press editor and say it dropped from her bag. Although I am one-book old in the book publishing game, my experience so far: (a) when editors embrace the book proposal with enthusiasm, don't take them too seriously. Chances are once you submit your manuscript and/or sample chapters they are either "out of office" or suffer amnesia; (b) several editors do not disclose details of the review process--ask them and they demure or curtly retort along the lines that it is none of the author's business; © no matter when you submit your manuscript, for editors there never is a good time to submit a manuscript for peer review: Jan and August submissions are definitely bad timing because faculty are busy with the start of the new semester. June-July is also not helpful because faculty are pursuing their own research plans. This leaves the rest of the year: faculty teach large classes and have complicated schedules. (d) Well, now lets say the review returned two positive responses. Hold your horses, those reviews don't mean a thing. The editor might casually inform you there have been some unexpected developments and decline the manuscript or she/he might blame the marketing department for not being enthusiastic. Most might wonder why the marketing folks were not consulted before the long drawn review began. At this point of rejection and dejection don't hold hopes of a meaningful dialogue. The editor's decision is final and they are not courting you any more. It is in your best interest to rein-in your lost time and hopes, and seek another publisher. A well-published academic once advised me, "keep your cards close to your chest" i.e., have an interested publisher firmly in place before any rejection. Yale University Press *Though my proposal was rejected, the editor was kind enough to suggest other presses who might be interested. *I was also impressed with Yale's efficiency and professionalism (2011-2013). Other Academic Publishers Academica Press *Published both monograph and edited collection here. Easy to work with, and the director is responsive and helpful. Nicely produced books, and in hundreds of academic libraries. Ashgate Publishing *At proofing stage for monograph & so far, so good. Excellent communication throughout, useful reports from external reader. Has adhered to all promised turnarounds to date *Fair and professional. I decided to work with a UP Press instead, but the peer review process was transparent and helpful. They clearly explained to me how they worked. Berg Publishers * Berghahn * Boydell & Brewer *Submitted a proposal that was initially lost (while the publisher's staff were in transition), but was later found. Communication since then has been excellent, as the editor has tried to make up for the initial issue relating to misplacing my proposal. I submitted the monograph shortly after and received a reader report from a reader who was happy to provide his name. I was pleasantly surprised to see that he is one of the leading scholars in my field. Received a contract after minor changes were made, and the final product will take around 10 months (which is typical). There were a number of images used in the book, so I was required to pay a subvention fee, but the editor assisted in trying to attain subvention from outside sources. Brill * Cambridge Scholars *Wonderful to work with, fast and simple. This is a relatively young but promising publisher. *Is this publisher legitimate or a glorified vanity press? I've heard mixed things. **They're legitimate in that they don't charge for their services (the definition of a vanity press); they don't even have a subvention fee, which is more than can be said for several other academic presses. They also don't consistently peer-review, however; it seems the editorial team has maybe a bit too much faith in their own judgement, and only makes recourse to reviewers reports when they have some doubt about a manuscript. On the upside, they have a quick publication turnaround, and are much more pleasant to work with than Peter Lang (who always seem to want to hit the author with huge typesetting fees at the last moment). **The first question is really two questions, First, does a book from Cambridge Scholars count toward promotion at your current job? (You can find out the answer by asking.) Second, would a book from Cambridge Scholars help you get some other job that you want down the road? (You can get a sense of this by looking at departments where you'd like to be and seeing where people there have published their books.) Legenda Press * Mellen *Mellen suing librarian who questioned quality of Press - academic freedom concerns raised (Inside Higher Ed, Feb. 2013) *Chronicle of Higher Ed article on Herbert W. Richardson, the founder of Edwin Mellen Press: April 15, 2013 "Herbert Richardson v. the World" *Changed terms of previous signed contract without any prior notification; sent me a "new" contract just when my ms was at their office, requiring all authors to now pay a fee ($1000/volume, $5 for every page over 100) to offset loss of reveniue due to ebooks. Modern Language Association *Edited collection with pedagogical focus started with proposal and CFP in 2006 and moved through two reasonable years of abstracts, writing, revisions, but then came the brakes. There's a backlog in their (otherwise excellent) copyediting dept, which resulted in a very long delay. There was talk that it would be out in 2010, 2011, and just got the same promise for 2012. Here's hoping. Palgrave Macmillan *quick rejection for a translation on the grounds that "they do not publish novels" (2011); this was a work of scholarship, so the grounds for rejection seemed rather odd. *Sent in proposal for edited anthology. Received reader's report quickly, which was generally favourable, but suggested re-write. Proposal was accepted very quickly after re-write, even though we only had abstracts, no finished chapters. Editors have been very friendly and helpful. *Publication process moved quickly, with the MS sent to one reader report who recommended some changes. In all, it was 8 months between sending in a proposal and signing a contract, then 8 months from submitting a final manuscript to having the book in print. The copyediting and production was a bit haphazard, though; an author needs to have a good eye for detail since I've seen other Palgrave books with mistakes in them. There's also Palgrave's tendency to publish scholarly books only in expensive hardcover editions. Even a well-received book may not get re-issued in paperback. I decided to take my second book to a university press, which gave me a much more favorable contract and had better attention to detail in the production process. Palgrave's only advantage was in speed (which for an Assistant Professor can be the most important factor). *I agree with the poster above about the friendly, helpful editors, and the poster who made the comment about speed. I am on the job market so the speed factor is important to me, as I have been having issues with some academic presses' very slow response time. Palgrave has been professional, helpful, prompt (for me, proposal to contract was about 4-5 months), and my colleagues have had similar experiences. I suggest researching carefully to see what the press has published in your field and how those books have been received. *My experience with PM (UK) has been nothing short of exceptional. From ms to monograph, it took about 1 year for the hardcover to be published. I was allowed the maximum freedom to work the ms in the way I thought best and given full freedom to design my own cover. They also had a very good copyediting team (although a couple of typos in the ms still missed all our collective eyes) and although, I don't know whom they sent the ms out for review, the reports by the reviewers were overall, positive and with constructive feedback. Oct. 2012 *Great experience with my first book. Proposal to acceptance was rapid. The editorial team showed considerable patience when I had to renegotiate deadlines due to personal and work circumstances. I submitted the manuscript in February 2012 and the book was out in early December. The copyediting process was very thorough. Dozens of copies have been sent out for review. Palgrave have also sent me two manuscripts to review in the last year, so it looks like the beginning of a fruitful relationship ... *Horrible experience with Palgrave! Sent proposal in June, first editor enthusiastic about the project, sends it for review which comes back mostly positive, recommending publication and praising the project for its originality, insightful readings, etc. with some changes suggested. Dilligently revised the Book proposal and the Intro., including a title change-very significant in my rather niche-field! First editor then has to hand on some of her/his projects to second editor who, probably swamped under the extra burden, claims he cannot 'get hold' of the first reviewer, normally the one to take on a second round of reviews, as the revised work was based on his/her initial suggestions. Finally, second editor manages to find a second reviewer (who saw no sample chapters at all) and who, as I realized (and I must confess to my shock) was actually sent the first version of the Intro. and Book proposal, the unrevised one (I could tell that because the title of the monograph was the same with my original title which the first reviewer suggested should be changed). Second reviewer recommends 'treading carefully' and specifiying the ideal audience, for the book, implying publication. Both reviews disclosed my name to the reviewers (my name appears on both reviews), so there is not double blind-reviewing process in Palgrave (or there was not any, in my case!) Sent an email to both editors, presenting my case and hoping for a fair hearing, and a word of apology, have heard nothing since...Do not think I ever will. The whole process took seven months and it DID cost me tenure! Really beware of Palgrave! *Sent a polite and simple email query (with clear subject line) to a series editor, since my project seems to (but does not quite) fit. Just wanted to know if submitting a proposal would be a waste of everyone's time. No response, so I take that as a no (or is it a tacit invitation to submit the proposal for review?). Unprofessional attitude. Sent an email to the director of another press asking if simultaneous submission of proposal would be acceptable - no response. Peter Lang *Make sure that your department and university count a Peter Lang book toward tenure before you decide to publish with them. Some schools do, but others do not. *Unless you are prepared to provide camera-ready copy, Peter Lang will ask for a subsidy to cover publication costs, as do some other university presses. It will charge for editing, composition, etc. (What it calls "Vendor Services"). Peter Lang's promotion is comparable to some other university presses, but don't expect a great deal of money to be spent on advertising your book. *Re: the above, I have certainly never been asked for a subsidy by a university press, let alone by a "top" press. Peter Lang books are reviewed in some leading journals, but not at the rate of the best presses. Peter Lang books are generally only advertised in the catalogues and emails they send out. *A colleague of mine published a book with PL while on the T-T. Turns out that enough people in our College (Arts and Sciences) knew about the (*ahem*) "subsidies" mentioned above, and as a result this colleague didn't accumulate enough scholarship to earn tenure. This happened in 2011-2012. I've asked around, and folks all over our region (southeastern U.S.) are aware of this. Nothing wrong with getting published by Peter Lang, but if you're counting it for tenure you should ask around first. Rodopi Press * Routledge *Awesome experience with Routledge. Within two months of sending the ms, I had a half dozen reader's reports and a contract. Book sped through the process and into print in less than a year from my initial proposal. *Ditto. I have a ms under contract and the editor was prompt, enthusiastic, quick in producing four external reviews of the proposal and thoroughly professional. I have also sent a query for another book manuscript to Routledge and that editor too has been prompt and professional. I am told their production time is eight months. *I had an incredible experience at every stage. Readers reports came through quickly, I had so much help and support from the editorial staff while I made revisions and prepared the manuscript, and the final book looks amazing. I would work with them again in a heartbeat. *Very positive experience here. The three external reader reports on the manuscript were thorough, rigorous, and quite helpful. It took about 10 months from submitting the initial proposal through revisions and add'l materials to obtaining contract. Wiley-Blackwell *